PDA

View Full Version : Guys! Guys! Guys! Guys! Guys! Guys! Guys! Guys!



Nameless
2012-09-04, 05:26 AM
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9rbzelZTe1qzjjjdo1_500.jpg

OH. MY. BUCKING. GLOB.


Please let this be real.

Tvtyrant
2012-09-04, 05:36 AM
Personally I doubt it, but it would be nice. Where did you find the poster?

Nameless
2012-09-04, 05:44 AM
A student/friend of mine sent it to me.

I'm kind of hopeful because I know Xiaolin Showdown is also making a comeback, so it is believable.

Iruka
2012-09-04, 05:45 AM
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Would be Awesome. But could just be some kind of hoax.

edit: AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Kitten Champion
2012-09-04, 05:47 AM
I... don't think it is, nothing on Google but random forum posts to substantiate it.

It's a nice poster.

grimbold
2012-09-04, 06:04 AM
I... don't think it is, nothing on Google but random forum posts to substantiate it.

It's a nice poster.

DON'T RUIN THE MAGIC

if this isn't real i might actually cry...

i want more... MOJOOOOO JOJO

Traab
2012-09-04, 06:39 AM
Whats so awesome about the powerpuff girls?

Nameless
2012-09-04, 06:44 AM
Whats so awesome about the powerpuff girls?

http://veomemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/What-Meme-150x150.png

Kato
2012-09-04, 07:10 AM
Hey, Nameless, I was going to do that!

I mean, it's better than one would expect but... it never struck me as really great. But if it makes people happy... it makes sense considering MLP's success.

Nameless
2012-09-04, 07:38 AM
Hey, Nameless, I was going to do that!

I mean, it's better than one would expect but... it never struck me as really great. But if it makes people happy... it makes sense considering MLP's success.

It's probably so memorable because it was one of the only shows at the time about three little cute girls that appealed to both genders.

Also, they kick some serious ass, that also might be it. :smallbiggrin:

Also, Craig McCracken is a genius. I'm looking forward to his collaborative project with Lauren Faust. It looks interesting.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-09-04, 07:43 AM
Craig McCracken has a series in the works already. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wander_Over_Yonder) (his lovely wife is co-producing)

Now I do have a lovely deal on a certain bridge if your interested. Famous location, solid construction, ideal investment..... just forward the cash in advance.

Kitten Champion
2012-09-04, 08:37 AM
A Craig McCracken/Lauren Faust cartoon starring Jack McBrayer as an interstellar hippie fighting Haters upon a talking horse?

Going on to new things isn't bad.

Nameless
2012-09-04, 11:46 AM
Look, info and stuff. (http://www.topix.com/forum/tv/the-powerpuff-girls/T2BIGEUP5ET17JT4D)

INoKnowNames
2012-09-04, 12:01 PM
Whats so awesome about the powerpuff girls?

I seem to notice a lack of Blue in your post, or any white text noting how excited you are about this. You should go back and edit your post, or else people might think you're being serious. Or that you have problems.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the event itself, Toonami did go from being dead to being undead, so Hell has already frozen over. Anything goes at this point.

I've had trouble typing this because my body is still somewhat spazing from shock. And unadulterated joy being released from every cell. And some sweat, just out of sheer excitement.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-09-04, 12:44 PM
Look, info and stuff. (http://www.topix.com/forum/tv/the-powerpuff-girls/T2BIGEUP5ET17JT4D)

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but YOU SERIOUSLY NEED A LESSON IN VERIFICATION.

Notice how the only actual source on this matter is a "Derek, San Diego CA" with no actual info on this "Derek" while posting in a comments section on with no actual source of information just generic links to standard webpages and no actual source.

NOW!

Compare for example this (http://www.gamerlive.tv/article/disney-channel-creators-introduce-wander-over-yonder-tv-series). Which while not exactly a major news source you can rapidly find the author and is drawing its information from an interview with Craig and Lauren at Comic-Con (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqUjVnnpqoo&feature=player_embedded) as the source. And how they don't mention this fake revival?

Also so help me your link is apparently the same troll trying to keep up the lie that was already called out as fake from the horse's mouth (http://comments.deviantart.com/4/6465375/2221551905). Serious he already said it so.

So yeah sorry to crush dreams and all, but seriously this is the sort of stuff you HAVE to know how to spot in this day and age.

Cen
2012-09-04, 12:44 PM
Look, info and stuff. (http://www.topix.com/forum/tv/the-powerpuff-girls/T2BIGEUP5ET17JT4D)

2014? But I want it nooow! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Azz-6oT08c)

Oh. It's a fake? so nevermind.

Nameless
2012-09-04, 01:03 PM
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but YOU SERIOUSLY NEED A LESSON IN VERIFICATION.

Notice how the only actual source on this matter is a "Derek, San Diego CA" with no actual info on this "Derek" while posting in a comments section on with no actual source of information just generic links to standard webpages and no actual source.

NOW!

Compare for example this (http://www.gamerlive.tv/article/disney-channel-creators-introduce-wander-over-yonder-tv-series). Which while not exactly a major news source you can rapidly find the author and is drawing its information from an interview with Craig and Lauren at Comic-Con (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqUjVnnpqoo&feature=player_embedded) as the source. And how they don't mention this fake revival?

Also so help me your link is apparently the same troll trying to keep up the lie that was already called out as fake from the horse's mouth (http://comments.deviantart.com/4/6465375/2221551905). Serious he already said it so.

So yeah sorry to crush dreams and all, but seriously this is the sort of stuff you HAVE to know how to spot in this day and age.

I actually didn't have an opinion on whether or not the information was accurate, it was just the only piece of information I found and decided to share it.
Which is why I just said, "Look, info and stuff" and didn't flip out with excitement as I would have done if I was sure of its accuracy.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-09-04, 01:23 PM
I actually didn't have an opinion on whether or not the information was accurate, it was just the only piece of information I found and decided to share it.
Which is why I just said, "Look, info and stuff" and didn't flip out with excitement as I would have done if I was sure of its accuracy.

Respectfully but posting it at all is giving far more credit then the link deserved.

There's a time and place for rumor and speculation and "well if you believe X over Y" and all, but this isn't it.

That isn't just say reporting and/or hyping of rumor, or even using say the old "source close to..." lie for plausible deniablity. This is someone out to troll people by masking their lies in pseudo-official sounding language like they are actually reporting something as if its real.

And your phrasing offers no opinion on the accuracy of your link. I really don't want to accuse you of backpedaling, but if when you post something without further opinion... you have strongly implied you supported its accuracy by posting it. Ex post facto claims of doubt are well... exactly what they sound like.

Especially (no offense) given that you have started this thread with evidently believeing this revivial was real then when its challenged you just post "Look, info and stuff." sounds more to less exactly like an attempt to defend against that challenge that this was actually happening.

Poor communication kills ya'know :smalltongue:

INoKnowNames
2012-09-04, 01:46 PM
Soras, give him some credit. He can be expected to have hyped over something like this, even if it's fake. It -is- over the PowerPuff Girls, after all.

Kindablue
2012-09-04, 01:56 PM
There's a time and place for rumor and speculation and "well if you believe X over Y" and all, but this isn't it.
Children's cartoons are serious business.

Nameless
2012-09-04, 02:00 PM
Respectfully but posting it at all is giving far more credit then the link deserved.

There's a time and place for rumor and speculation and "well if you believe X over Y" and all, but this isn't it.

That isn't just say reporting and/or hyping of rumor, or even using say the old "source close to..." lie for plausible deniablity. This is someone out to troll people by masking their lies in pseudo-official sounding language like they are actually reporting something as if its real.

And your phrasing offers no opinion on the accuracy of your link. I really don't want to accuse you of backpedaling, but if when you post something without further opinion... you have strongly implied you supported its accuracy by posting it. Ex post facto claims of doubt are well... exactly what they sound like.

I gave it credit and posted it because I didn't know how factual it was, not because was under the assumption that it was definitely real, and not because I knew it was fake, but because it was something that I found.
I can only apologies if it wasn't clear about my opinion on it, but it wasn't exactly something I gave much thought to, I didn't realise it so important.


Especially (no offense) given that you have started this thread with evidently believeing this revivial was real then when its challenged you just post "Look, info and stuff." sounds more to less exactly like an attempt to defend against that challenge that this was actually happening.

Poor communication kills ya'know :smalltongue:

Actually, I wrote on the first post, and I quote; "Please let this be real.". Which should at least suggest that I wasn't sure whether or not it was real, but hoped it was.
Which, you know, I did.


Children's cartoons are serious business.

Hey, they actually are for me. :smalltongue:

Stupid academia.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-09-04, 02:48 PM
Children's cartoons are serious business.

Yes and no. Also cartoons are for children?

However basic sorting truth from rumor and the checking the veracity of information certainly are important.

This wasn't even a good fake up.

INoKnowNames
2012-09-04, 02:53 PM
This wasn't even a good fake up.

I'll give you that: Why is Bubbles Glaring when this is obviously a very good thing, and wouldn't warrent Angry Eyes from her? Arguably the same can be applied to Blossom, though she's more likely to look mean than Bubbles.

Mr.Silver
2012-09-04, 03:07 PM
Yes and no. Also cartoons are for children?


'Children's Cartoons' are typically intended for children, yes. There's sort of a clue in the name :smallwink:

Kindablue
2012-09-04, 03:10 PM
Yes and no. Also cartoons are for children?

If all cartoons were for children, describing any cartoons as being "children's" would be redundant, don't you think?

I agree with you--you just said it in a particularly silly way that struck me.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-09-04, 03:12 PM
'Children's Cartoons' are typically intended for children, yes. There's sort of a clue in the name :smallwink:

Could you perhaps cite an example of one then?

I'm not sure I've ever encountered one. Just some good and bad ones.

Tyndmyr
2012-09-04, 03:14 PM
I'm not really into all this, but the name of this thread doesn't seem very informative. Could we maybe get better thread naming so that those of us who have absolutely no interest in pony stuff(or whatever this is, if not ponies) whatsoever can avoid these topics?

Tebryn
2012-09-04, 03:16 PM
Could you perhaps cite an example of one then?

I'm not sure I've ever encountered one. Just some good and bad ones.

Dora the Explorer? Arthur?

INoKnowNames
2012-09-04, 03:24 PM
I'm not really into all this, but the name of this thread doesn't seem very informative. Could we maybe get better thread naming so that those of us who have absolutely no interest in pony stuff(or whatever this is, if not ponies) whatsoever can avoid these topics?

.......

It's (fake) the Return of the PowerPuff Girls! Duh! And if you want to avoid Pandora's Box, just avoid it!

Maxios
2012-09-04, 03:24 PM
A student/friend of mine sent it to me.

I'm kind of hopeful because I know Xiaolin Showdown is also making a comeback, so it is believable.

IT IS!?!?!? Oh man, I LOVED that show when I was younger!

Soras Teva Gee
2012-09-04, 03:25 PM
I'm not really into all this, but the name of this thread doesn't seem very informative. Could we maybe get better thread naming so that those of us who have absolutely no interest in pony stuff(or whatever this is, if not ponies) whatsoever can avoid these topics?

This has to do with ponies? I mean aside from my ponytar of course.

Seriously PPG so predates FiM its not even funny. A little disturbing to me that ponies are evidently causing backwash onto their stylistic precedents.


Dora the Explorer? Arthur?

I encountered Arthur once and got a reasonably enjoyable if not overly complex episode out of it.

I guess I'll just take your word for it on Dora.

Still finding it a bit hard to apply to the medium as any sort of general rule.

INoKnowNames
2012-09-04, 03:35 PM
IT IS!?!?!? Oh man, I LOVED that show when I was younger!

GONG YI TANPAI!

I don't take any of these rumors at face value... but, again, since freaking Toonami came back from the dead, that means anything can happen. And it's certainly not like I'd oppose these if they did come back.


This has to do with ponies? I mean aside from my ponytar of course.

Seriously PPG so predates FiM its not even funny. A little disturbing to me that ponies are evidently causing backwash onto their stylistic precedents.

It's hardly evident to just Ponies. Lots of series are getting grouped under things they actually came -after-, rather than before. I actually saw someone comment that "Dragon Ball Z is gay, people should watch a real anime, like Bleach."

He didn't live much longer.

Nameless
2012-09-04, 03:36 PM
Dora the Explorer? Arthur?

Dora the Explorer does not deserve to be mentioned in a Powerpuff Girls thread. Please remove it from your comment.


IT IS!?!?!? Oh man, I LOVED that show when I was younger!

Ee (http://xiaolinshowdown-official.wikia.com/wiki/Xiaolin_Chronicles)yu (http://xiaolinchronicles.tumblr.com/)p! (http://www.xiaolinchronicles.com/)

Tebryn
2012-09-04, 03:37 PM
I encountered Arthur once and got a reasonably enjoyable if not overly complex episode out of it.

I guess I'll just take your word for it on Dora.

Still finding it a bit hard to apply to the medium as any sort of general rule.

Just because you -enjoyed- it doesn't mean it isn't a cartoon intended for children. Hence why they are called "Children's Cartoons".

INoKnowNames
2012-09-04, 03:45 PM
Ee (http://xiaolinshowdown-official.wikia.com/wiki/Xiaolin_Chronicles)yu (http://xiaolinchronicles.tumblr.com/)p! (http://www.xiaolinchronicles.com/)

Hopefully it won't be like the newest Scooby Doo / Looney Tunes.


Just because you -enjoyed- it doesn't mean it isn't a cartoon intended for children. Hence why they are called "Children's Cartoons".

In the beginning, they weren't kid's Cartoons, though. It's only been a rather recent stereotype that they are. And its meet with lots of resistance, and rightfully so.

Mr.Silver
2012-09-04, 03:48 PM
Could you perhaps cite an example of one then?

I'm not sure I've ever encountered one.
Given that we're in a thread about one, you'll forgive me if I don't name more on the grounds that doing so would fall on deaf ears.


Just some good and bad ones
So parents should probably reconsider allowing you access to the TV if you're on babysitting duty?


I encountered Arthur once and got a reasonably enjoyable if not overly complex episode out of it.
Which has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the show is aimed at children. Unless of course you ascribe to the notion that its demographic somehow prevents it from being good.


Still finding it a bit hard to apply to the medium as any sort of general rule.
Since most creators and the industry in general (including in Japan) seem to have managed that one, I think this is mostly just your problem here :smallwink:



In the beginning, they weren't kid's Cartoons, though. It's only been a rather recent stereotype that they are. And its meet with lots of resistance, and rightfully so.
Yes, but trying to argue that cartoons that actually are aimed at children somehow aren't, by virtue of them being enjoyable, is counter-productive. It accepts the implicit assumption in the stereotype that being aimed at children is detrimental to a thing's quality and suggests the person adopting that defence is simply in denial. Basically, if someone uses it that only makes them look silly while failing to provide any real resistance to the stereotype.

Tebryn
2012-09-04, 03:50 PM
In the beginning, they weren't kid's Cartoons, though. It's only been a rather recent stereotype that they are. And its meet with lots of resistance, and rightfully so.

Dora the Explorer? Ni hao Kai-Lan? Those weren't originally made for children? Arthur? How about Little Bear? These are shows originally made for children. What are you talking about? :smallconfused:

Soras Teva Gee
2012-09-04, 03:50 PM
It's hardly evident to just Ponies. Lots of series are getting grouped under things they actually came -after-, rather than before. I actually saw someone comment that "Dragon Ball Z is gay, people should watch a real anime, like Bleach."


I care less since that's only talking about broad shonen conventions.

FiM is far more... directly... related but also very different. Which given how great FiM's predecessors are I find just a terrible lack of research.


Which has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the show is aimed at children. Unless of course you ascribe to the notion that its demographic somehow prevents it from being good.


Seriously look to the left of this post and then consider that.

Apparently I need to work on my facetiousness because that's exactly the problem I have with the distinction. And feel that the term reinforces the perception.

Maxios
2012-09-04, 04:03 PM
Hopefully it won't be like the newest Scooby Doo / Looney Tunes.



In the beginning, they weren't kid's Cartoons, though. It's only been a rather recent stereotype that they are. And its meet with lots of resistance, and rightfully so.

Hey, I liked those. Especially the portrayl of The Tasmanian Devil in The Looney Tunes Show.

Traab
2012-09-04, 04:21 PM
Heh, ill be honest, I was joking, mainly because I actually thought it was some sort of MLP movie poster. But I saw the bow and decided to go with PPG, not realizing it really was.

INoKnowNames
2012-09-04, 04:25 PM
Given that we're in a thread about one, you'll forgive me if I don't name more on the grounds that doing so would fall on deaf ears.

... -The- "Whoopass" Girls were a kid show? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Radar/ThePowerpuffGirls) I -NEVER- realised that. (http://http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/NightmareFuel/ThePowerpuffGirls)


So parents should probably reconsider allowing you access to the TV if you're on babysitting duty?

.... is this sarcastic, or are you serious?


Which has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the show is aimed at children. Unless of course you ascribe to the notion that its demographic somehow prevents it from being good.

As I mentioned earlier, when "cartoons" and "animation" first came out, they were just an alternative to regular films, which were much more expensive to come up with. It's only been recent time that we've gone to even rating them, with the "more approvable" shows being rated as Kid shows. But there are lots of good media that can appeal to all audiences and still be good...


Yes, but trying to argue that cartoons that actually are aimed at children somehow aren't, by virtue of them being enjoyable, is counter-productive. It accepts the implicit assumption in the stereotype that being aimed at children is detrimental to a thing's quality and suggests the person adopting that defence is simply in denial. Basically, if someone uses it that only makes them look silly while failing to provide any real resistance to the stereotype.

I don't think I ever said that cartoons that are considered more suited to children aren't capable of being enjoyable, did I?


Dora the Explorer? Ni hao Kai-Lan? Those weren't originally made for children? Arthur? How about Little Bear? These are shows originally made for children. What are you talking about? :smallconfused:

I was talking about shows in general, not any specific shows. I was speaking for the history of Animation. In the current rating system, it doesn't go with "for kids" or "for adults" due to how they were made or what the creator had in mind for the target audience. It goes based on whether or not the content is acceptable to the public audience or not. Way back when, it was essentially a stylistic and cheaper alternative to filming, if I've got my history right.


I care less since that's only talking about broad shonen conventions.

It happens to a lot of things, though. It goes back further than that... and it's still a good example of what's being talked about.

Besides, DBZ rocks. Your argument is invalid.


Hey, I liked those. Especially the portrayl of The Tasmanian Devil in The Looney Tunes Show.

I'll respect your opinion, even if I think my childhood being assaulted gives me the right to go seek my revenge against the idiots that story boarded both of those shows. :smallmad: My poor childhood...


Heh, ill be honest, I was joking, mainly because I actually thought it was some sort of MLP movie poster. But I saw the bow and decided to go with PPG, not realizing it really was.

The Color Scheme should have clued you in immediately. I had to double take to see the bow...

MLai
2012-09-04, 06:43 PM
I think this argument is barking up the wrong tree. It's not whether a specific group of people vocally likes cartoons, or children's cartoons. Lots of people on this forum and beyond watch cartoons in the past and present.

I think the resistance is specifically about a group of adult men vocally liking cartoons that were initially "for girls", or at least have young girls in mind specifically as a significant target audience.

I'm not giving an opinion on the matter, just saying that's the true source of the "resistance."

Kindablue
2012-09-04, 07:00 PM
The Whoopass Girls weren't a children's show, that's true. They weren't a show at all.

Jade Dragon
2012-09-04, 07:22 PM
Heh, ill be honest, I was joking, mainly because I actually thought it was some sort of MLP movie poster. But I saw the bow and decided to go with PPG, not realizing it really was.

I occasionally watched a PPG episode like, six to eight years ago. It took me two seconds to recognize the picture.

Traab
2012-09-04, 08:01 PM
I occasionally watched a PPG episode like, six to eight years ago. It took me two seconds to recognize the picture.

Which is probably why my mind went to PPG. I just assumed it was ponies because, well, this board is obsessed with the equines. And to the other poster, you say that like there are no ponies of those colors. And I have watched parts of a couple of episodes, and read all of one fanfiction which had a mild crossover with ppg (btvs, jonathan cloned buffy willow and cordelia and made three perfect not so little girls. Who love xander.)

Trazoi
2012-09-04, 08:24 PM
This thread isn't about guys at all. :smallannoyed:

I've got a mixed reaction. PPGs was great a decade ago (still have my Bubbles keyring) but the last season and the movie were distinctly meh. This could be fantastic but it might be raising a zombie of a show that should be left to rest.


Whats so awesome about the powerpuff girls?
For starters, their kindergarten teacher is Commander Shepard. :smalltongue:

Harr
2012-09-04, 08:48 PM
This would be awesome but the poster itself looks kind of sketchy... I mean those eyes look nothing like the actual PPG's eyes and they lay really awkwardly on that background. If I were forced to guess I would guess someone had just whipped it up in photoshop in 30 minutes. But we can always hope, I guess.

Edit -> Actually to self-verify my own claim about them not looking like the real PPG's eyes I went on Google Images and, does anyone else think they might be cropped out from this pic: http://c.editingmyspace.com/files/en/powerpuff.girls/powerpuff_girls_025.gif ? (cropping the eyes out without the outline around them, and without the part of the eyes that's under the hair, would account for the weird look).

Later edit -> Yeah look at that:

http://i.imgur.com/hM4lp.jpg

Also, the bow.

Trazoi
2012-09-04, 09:12 PM
This would be awesome but the poster itself looks kind of sketchy... I mean those eyes look nothing like the actual PPG's eyes and they lay really awkwardly on that background. If I were forced to guess I would guess someone had just whipped it up in photoshop in 30 minutes. But we can always hope, I guess.
It's the font choice I'm most skeptical about. That one doesn't look right.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-09-04, 09:25 PM
*Looks at above posts*

Really now? There's any doubt at all?

*sigh*

Trazoi
2012-09-04, 09:50 PM
I'd skimmed the first page and thought we were discussing the meta idea of whether rebooting PPG was a good idea. I hadn't quite got that most of the "I loved that show" on this page was talking about completely different shows. And I completely ignored thinking about the whole question about whether the idea was plausible or not. :smallsmile:

Honestly, at a glance I'd semi-buy as plausible the idea of the eyes on the tri-colour background as a plausible enough marketing idea for an official reboot/revival ad. But the font gives it away.
Edit: So what is that picture from anyway? Is it a joke/troll or is it for some fan thing?

Kitten Champion
2012-09-04, 09:53 PM
I never really liked PPGs when they were first on, I found it kind of dry and stupid. I went back to it a couple of months ago on DVD, and saw it in an entirely different light. As a parody of 50's/60's science fiction and super hero cartoons, loaded with pop culture references and a twisted sense of humour. It felt like it was aimed at my older self. It's strange that the irony of the show was lost or ignored entirely with its merchandising, network advertising, and the general attitude surrounding it.

I would welcome it back, but to me, a lot of animation these days has this sense of humour.

turkishproverb
2012-09-04, 11:54 PM
Whats so awesome about the powerpuff girls?

Everything.

OracleofWuffing
2012-09-05, 12:51 AM
Well, this is just peachy. Now that I've had to put up with PPG for years, now I'm going to have to put up with it again, only this time half the fans will be complaining that they changed it and it sucks now. :smalltongue:

Soras Teva Gee
2012-09-05, 01:04 AM
Well, this is just peachy. Now that I've had to put up with PPG for years, now I'm going to have to put up with it again, only this time half the fans will be complaining that they changed it and it sucks now. :smalltongue:

Love when people don't read the thread...

OracleofWuffing
2012-09-05, 01:15 AM
You think a little thing like a hoax being a hoax is going to stop people on the internet from pointing out that they changed it and it sucks now?:smallwink:

Edit: vvv Thank you. :smallamused:

Trazoi
2012-09-05, 02:55 AM
Proper order should be Bubbles/Blossom/Buttercup.

They changed it and it sucks now. :smallannoyed:

Emmerask
2012-09-05, 04:16 AM
Well with so many exclamation marks and Guys in the topic I was really interested what awesome stuff it could be:

1)engineers created a working light saber
2)you can buy a Hoverboard next year
3)Firefly is back
4)They finally make a Mechwarrior movie based on the novels
5)they created a food that combines a Burger, Nachos, Pizza and a Hotdog (and tastes awesome) :smallbiggrin:

then its ppg, Im a tiny bit disappointed now :smalltongue:

Killer Angel
2012-09-05, 04:23 AM
So parents should probably reconsider allowing you access to the TV if you're on babysitting duty?


.... is this sarcastic, or are you serious?

To be fair, parents should have the final word on what their children can or cannot watch on TV...

Chess435
2012-09-05, 04:28 AM
Darn, I really wish this was a thing......

Nameless
2012-09-05, 05:51 AM
Hopefully it won't be like the newest Scooby Doo / Looney Tunes.



In the beginning, they weren't kid's Cartoons, though. It's only been a rather recent stereotype that they are. And its meet with lots of resistance, and rightfully so.

Honestly, I actually preferred the newer Scooby Doo to the original. But I was never a huge fan of the original, anyway, so, meh.

Loony Toons on the other hand... yeah, I agree on you with that.

Also, if a cartoon is aimed at children, then it's a children's cartoon. However, I've argued this time and time again, it being a media for children doesn't make it any less valid as a form of art or entertainment. I can't stand it when people say, "Oh, it's just for kids." It's such a patronising sort of "just", you wouldn't say, "Oh, it's just for adults." in that same kind of way.
I think it's a big problem, because it's this "Oh, it's not that important" attitude that effects the industry and it's probably at least partly responsible for all the rubbish that's been churned out, along with the fact that we assume kids are idiots and should be protected from anything that shows any form of depth or complexity in the slightest. Dora the bucking Explorer, Spot the Dog, those bloody Teletubbies, *mummbles on*... The "educational" shows tend to be the most grating. :smallannoyed: What makes this more frustrating, is that it's been proven wrong time and time again, but this perception doesn't seem to go away.
Also, it might be aimed at children, but that doesn't mean an older audience can't enjoy it.
[/rant]



The Whoopass Girls weren't a children's show, that's true. They weren't a show at all.

That's because it was a crude student short film. :smalltongue:

Jahkaivah
2012-09-05, 07:13 AM
Clearly they got the date wrong.


http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c226/saxcsa/LousySmarchWeather.png


Now it's legit.

Tyndmyr
2012-09-05, 08:56 AM
.......

It's (fake) the Return of the PowerPuff Girls! Duh! And if you want to avoid Pandora's Box, just avoid it!

I do not care what it actually is, I simply care that people label threads accurately so that I don't have to trawl through drek I'm uninterested in to get to the stuff I am.

Maugan Ra
2012-09-05, 09:30 AM
...oh god. I see the picture, and get smacked in the face with a metric ton of nostalgic memories that I didn't realize I still had. All of them in lurid technicolour.

The Mayor, with his little hat. Fuzzy Lumpkins. The Mayor's secretary type lady whose name I cannot remember and the face we never saw. Him, who tortures with tooth decay (you'll have to imagine the fabulous voice). Mojo Jojo, with his secret volcano lair right in the centre of City Park. The professor, who is actually a surprisingly good father.

That one scene where the swat team member is taking part in a kindergarten arts-and-crafts session with his full gear on...

I have no watched this show in years. Why can I remember it in such detail?

Nekura
2012-09-05, 01:59 PM
Honestly, I actually preferred the newer Scooby Doo to the original. But I was never a huge fan of the original, anyway, so, meh.

Loony Toons on the other hand... yeah, I agree on you with that.

Also, if a cartoon is aimed at children, then it's a children's cartoon. However, I've argued this time and time again, it being a media for children doesn't make it any less valid as a form of art or entertainment. I can't stand it when people say, "Oh, it's just for kids." It's such a patronising sort of "just", you wouldn't say, "Oh, it's just for adults." in that same kind of way.
I think it's a big problem, because it's this "Oh, it's not that important" attitude that effects the industry and it's probably at least partly responsible for all the rubbish that's been churned out, along with the fact that we assume kids are idiots and should be protected from anything that shows any form of depth or complexity in the slightest. Dora the bucking Explorer, Spot the Dog, those bloody Teletubbies, *mummbles on*... The "educational" shows tend to be the most grating. :smallannoyed: What makes this more frustrating, is that it's been proven wrong time and time again, but this perception doesn't seem to go away.
Also, it might be aimed at children, but that doesn't mean an older audience can't enjoy it.
[/rant]




That's because it was a crude student short film. :smalltongue:

Yes kids shows have gone way downhill and its not just things like teletubbies or the wiggles. They killed classics like sesame street. It used to be very entertaining for children and adults while being educational so why do you need to add elmos world and wreck it?

Nameless
2012-09-05, 04:36 PM
Clearly they got the date wrong.


http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c226/saxcsa/LousySmarchWeather.png


Now it's legit.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/20056848.jpg


Yes kids shows have gone way downhill and its not just things like teletubbies or the wiggles. They killed classics like sesame street. It used to be very entertaining for children and adults while being educational so why do you need to add elmos world and wreck it?


I never really grew up with Sesame Street, so I wouldn't know. I wouldn't say that kids shows have constantly gone downhill, it seems to have always been fluctuating between periods of good shows and periods of bad shows. I'd say the last "bad" (And probably the worst) point in children's media was around 2005/2006 to early 2010 if I remember correctly. Aside from a few good cartoons starting up (such as Avatar, and then Phineas and Ferb a couple of years later), there was a general trend shift towards pseudo-sitcoms; Hannah Montana, Zack and Cody, Wizards of Waverly Place etc. I believe Drake & Josh was the trend setter, which came out in 2004*.
There were cartoons at the time, but I remember most of them being plain awful aside from the replays of older cartoons. It's hard for me to judge exactly, because the UK gets most of the American shows months, or even years after they come out in the US. We don't get many Freanch/main land European television, and British children's media as a whole is absolutely terrible and patronising to the furthest degree.

*I'm looking at you, Dan Schneider. How the Hell did you get your shows aired? They were all terrible. I think you single handedly ruined television for me. :smallannoyed:

I'd say that since 2010, we've seen a lot of fantastic shows popping up, really starting with MLP:FiM, Adventure Time, Regular Show and The Amazing World of Gumball, and then Tron: Uprising, Green Lantern: TAS and Gravity Falls a little later.

Hooray for having to edit a post 3 4 times because you keep messing it up.

Lord Seth
2012-09-05, 08:02 PM
Yes kids shows have gone way downhill and its not just things like teletubbies or the wiggles. They killed classics like sesame street. It used to be very entertaining for children and adults while being educational so why do you need to add elmos world and wreck it?It still is. For example, their Glee parody was hilarious.

Okay, Elmo's World is rather dumb, but the rest is still decent. It's kind of like how I always found the "And Now A Word From Us Kids" sections from Arthur to be pretty awful, but I could still enjoy the rest of the show.
*I'm looking at you, Dan Schneider. How the Hell did you get your shows aired?Because they were all pretty successful?
They were all terrible.I disagree.

Maxios
2012-09-05, 08:44 PM
Drake and Josh was pretty good. Can't speak about the quality of his other shows.

Jade Dragon
2012-09-05, 09:18 PM
It's kind of like how I always found the "And Now A Word From Us Kids" sections from Arthur to be pretty awful, but I could still enjoy the rest of the show.

Ugh, those sections are terrible in Arthur and Curious George. The shows are decent enough, and Curious George has some funny parts, but those sections are mind-numbing to me. Okay, we got the lesson, you don't have to tell us again with some first grade class project.

And for the sitcoms, I thought the Suite Life of Zach and Cody was good. I loved the episode where it turned out Zach and Mr. Moseby were playing the same MMO fantasy game.

Nameless
2012-09-06, 02:15 AM
Because they were all pretty successful?I disagree.

How can a show be successful before it's aired? :smalltongue:


Drake and Josh was pretty good. Can't speak about the quality of his other shows.

Drake & Josh was tolerable in comparison to ones that came about later, I guess it had a vague sort of charm to it.

I still see it as a catalyst, though. :smallannoyed:

Lord Seth
2012-09-06, 05:54 PM
How can a show be successful before it's aired? :smalltongue:Easy. Previous shows can be successful. And before Drake & Josh, All That and Kenan & Kel were both really big hits.


Drake & Josh was tolerable in comparison to ones that came about later, I guess it had a vague sort of charm to it.I liked both Drake & Josh and Victorious. iCarly is...adequate. Didn't see enough of Zoey 101 to judge it.


I still see it as a catalyst, though. :smallannoyed:Lizzie McGuire and That's So Raven predated Drake & Josh.

Nameless
2012-09-07, 04:33 AM
Easy. Previous shows can be successful. And before Drake & Josh, All That and Kenan & Kel were both really big hits.

That doesn't make the show itself successful if it hasn't aired yet. Shyamalan had successful films before The Singes, that film wasn't exactly a great success. Do I even need to mention The Last Airbender movie? That was even based off a successful series.


I liked both Drake & Josh and Victorious. iCarly is...adequate. Didn't see enough of Zoey 101 to judge it.

Drake & Josh I can forgive, Victorious.. I... just... fine, that's your opinion, I suppose. But... iCarly... adequate? REALLY?


Lizzie McGuire and That's So Raven predated Drake & Josh.

Heh, I forgot about That's so Raven. I guess that's true, but it was in 2003, a couple of years before the shift from cartoons really started. Drake and Josh seemed to be the inspiration for a pseudo-sitcom hype that kicked off a year after it's release.
Lizzie McGuire was even earlier, in 2001, and it seemed to follow a similar sort of format to Malcolm in the Middle, rather then the format we saw all the sitcoms have in later on when they were getting big. There's been teen sitcoms for a long time, I'm not disputing them in general. I'm talking about the period between 2005-2010, when they were really taking over, and very few decent catoons were coming out. (At least here, anyway.)

Coidzor
2012-09-07, 04:39 AM
You know what's sad? It took me a few seconds to realize it wasn't just angry pony eyes. x.x

Lord Seth
2012-09-08, 12:47 AM
That doesn't make the show itself successful if it hasn't aired yet. Shyamalan had successful films before The Singes, that film wasn't exactly a great success. Do I even need to mention The Last Airbender movie? That was even based off a successful series.So by your logic, no one should ever get anything made ever because after all, they don't know if it'll be successful or not!

I'm not really grasping your logic here.


Drake & Josh I can forgive, Victorious.. I... just... fine, that's your opinion, I suppose. But... iCarly... adequate? REALLY?Yes, really. It's quite possibly the most thoroughly adequate series I've ever seen.

Mystic Muse
2012-09-08, 12:53 AM
You know what's sad? It took me a few seconds to realize it wasn't just angry pony eyes. x.x

It took me a few minutes.

It has clearly been a very long time since I saw an episode of this.:smalltongue:

Fjolnir
2012-09-08, 12:55 AM
My only issue with Icarly is the general lack of any competent adults.

Mystic Muse
2012-09-08, 01:07 AM
My only issue with Icarly is the general lack of any competent adults.

I recall an episode that, other than the fact that the character couldn't die because it's a kid's show, some kids almost killed Carly's older brother because he didn't give out candy on Halloween.

I recall it being something like rolling him into the middle of a busy street.

Ha ha ha. Some kids almost killed an adult because he forgot to buy Halloween candy. Not funny. :smallannoyed:

Nameless
2012-09-08, 04:04 AM
So by your logic, no one should ever get anything made ever because after all, they don't know if it'll be successful or not!

I'm not really grasping your logic here.

What? No. When did I even suggest that? I was simply commenting on your point that "It got aired because it was successful". Which... doesn't make sense.

Lord Seth
2012-09-08, 09:54 AM
What? No. When did I even suggest that? I was simply commenting on your point that "It got aired because it was successful". Which... doesn't make sense.You: How did Dan Schneider get his shows aired?
Me: Because he has a history of making popular and successful shows.
You: But Drake & Josh wasn't successful until it aired!
Me: Shows before that were successful. See Kenan & Kel and All That.
You: Oh yeah? What about before those shows?

It is difficult to see how this can lead to anything other the assertion I said your logic led to. If you're going to demand that someone needs to have success in something before they can do anything in that field, then no one can actually do anything in it.

Nameless
2012-09-08, 10:16 AM
You: How did Dan Schneider get his shows aired?
Me: Because he has a history of making popular and successful shows.
You: But Drake & Josh wasn't successful until it aired!
Me: Shows before that were successful. See Kenan & Kel and All That.
You: Oh yeah? What about before those shows?

It is difficult to see how this can lead to anything other the assertion I said your logic led to. If you're going to demand that someone needs to have success in something before they can do anything in that field, then no one can actually do anything in it.

Not to sound harsh, but that is somewhat a bastardisation of what I wrote and far from anything I even insinuated.

I asked, (in a slightly tongue-in-cheek manner - but whatever) how his shows managed to get aired.
You said it because they were successful.
I then went on to explain that that couldn't be the reason, because in order for them to be successful, they first have to be aired.

You mentioned how his previous shows were successful somewhere in that conversation, I think.

At what point did I even suggest that "someone has to have success in something before they can do anything in the field"?

EDIT:


How the Hell did you get your shows aired?


Because they were all pretty successful?


How can a show be successful before it's aired? :smalltongue:




Easy. Previous shows can be successful. And before Drake & Josh, All That and Kenan & Kel were both really big hits.



That doesn't make the show itself successful if it hasn't aired yet.



So by your logic, no one should ever get anything made ever because after all, they don't know if it'll be successful or not!

I'm not really grasping your logic here.



Where was it that I said "someone needs to have success in something before they can do anything in that field"?

I was just arguing against your logic that his show got aired because it was successful.

Coidzor
2012-09-08, 08:41 PM
My only issue with Icarly is the general lack of any competent adults.

There are adults on that show? :smalleek: I thought it was some kind of social commentary on some kind of Children of the Corn scenario on the Disney Channel.